Samsung says everything is fine and the update is not to blame.

A number of users are claiming that the Galaxy Note 3 KitKat update breaks compatibility with some third-party accessories. The accessories affected are unofficial versions of Samsung's S-View Flip Cover, a case with a window over the top half of the screen. A working S-View cover will turn the screen on and trigger a special display that shows the time and notifications through its window. In the previous update, Android 4.3, unofficial S-View covers could trigger this special display mode as well, but after the update to 4.4, the phone will only recognize Samsung-made products.

A report by SamMobile says that the official flip cover contains an authentication chip that triggers the special S-View mode. If a phone running the KitKat update does not detect an official Samsung authentication chip, the display changeover never happens, and the third-party smart cover becomes a dumb cover. Apparently, official Samsung cases have always contained the authentication chip, but the authentication was not previously enforced. With the KitKat update, it appears that the Note 3 now requires the presence of the Samsung authentication chip to switch over into S-View mode, which breaks existing third-party smart covers.

Some intrepid users have already figured out ways around the new limitations. One way, of course, is to rip the authentication chip out of a legit S-View case and affix it to a third-party case. The other is a software hack for rooted devices that can supposedly restore compatibility with all cases—attempt that at your own risk.

In a statement given to German website AllAboutSamsung, Samsung recommends that customers use Samsung accessories and denies that the KitKat update has broken anything. Here is a translated version of their statement:

Statement on the use of third-party accessories

To ensure a pleasant and smooth user experience with Samsung products for our customers, we recommend that only original accessories from Samsung should be used. Of course, customers can continue to rely on third-party accessories. The full functionality of our devices and accessories, however, can only be ensured with genuine Samsung components, since only in this way is it ensured that equipment and accessories are perfectly matched. A correlation between the Android version 4.4 and the supposed incompatibility of third-party accessories does not exist.

For a problem that "does not exist," there are a surprising amount of users complaining about it. It's also strange that the above fixes, like modifying system files or attaching the official ID chip to an official cover, will restore the functionality. It makes sense that Samsung, like Apple, would want to lock down its accessory ecosystem and get revenue from every compatible item sold. However, we would expect some kind of an official accessory program announcement before the launch of the Note 3 and the building (and selling) of many third-party accessories. Causing existing accessories that customers have already purchased to stop functioning doesn't make much sense, and it will just serve to anger Samsung's customers and third-party accessory builders.

Samsung has yet to respond to our requests for comment. We will update this article with any reply we receive.

Listing image by Samsung

Ron Amadeo
Ron is the Reviews Editor at Ars Technica, where he specializes in Android OS and Google products. He is always on the hunt for a new gadget and loves to rip things apart to see how they work. Emailron.amadeo@arstechnica.com//Twitter@RonAmadeo

Is it just me or is Samsung the new Apple? This is the sort of thing I'd expect from them.

Even Apple, who is super-controlling on the software side, wouldn't do this. Look at the vibrant selection of third-party accessories for the iPhone and iPad lines. Fact is, this is not only malicious but shortsighted. A broad selection of accessories for a product makes that product more desirable to buy. This is true of cars, phones, tablets, firearms, etc.

Is it just me or is Samsung the new Apple? This is the sort of thing I'd expect from them.

I don't know if that's what I'd call them. They're mostly just being Samsung IMO.

I like my Galaxy S4 a lot but I don't plan to get another Samsung phone in the future. This generation has been filled with stunts from Samsung (stuff like knox) and there's no reason I have to get a Samsung. It does help that I think the next phone I get will likely have 64GB internal storage standard which means I don't need a microSD like I do for this generation.

Overall this is an idiotic move, a strong 3rd party peripheral market is healthy and adds to the appeal of the device. People like having choices, take that away and people will not be happy, and in the long run unhappy customers don't stay customers.

Is it just me or is Samsung the new Apple? This is the sort of thing I'd expect from them.

Even Apple, who is super-controlling on the software side, wouldn't do this. Look at the vibrant selection of third-party accessories for the iPhone and iPad lines. Fact is, this is not only malicious but shortsighted. A broad selection of accessories for a product makes that product more desirable to buy. This is true of cars, phones, tablets, firearms, etc.

The difference is that in order to even MAKE a third party product for an Apple product, you usually MUST acquire a license to do so and if it's hardware related there's usually a technical need that must be sourced directly from Apple to be incorporated into your design to make it work in the first place.

I like my Galaxy S4 a lot but I don't plan to get another Samsung phone in the future. This generation has been filled with stunts from Samsung (stuff like knox) and there's no reason I have to get a Samsung. It does help that I think the next phone I get will likely have 64GB internal storage standard which means I don't need a microSD like I do for this generation.

I'm quite in the same boat. I don't appreciate a locked bootloader, and I don't appreciate this nonsense (even if I don't use such cases). I'm looking forward to the expiration of my contract and picking up a stock-android phone next time around.

Is it just me or is Samsung the new Apple? This is the sort of thing I'd expect from them.

Even Apple, who is super-controlling on the software side, wouldn't do this. Look at the vibrant selection of third-party accessories for the iPhone and iPad lines. Fact is, this is not only malicious but shortsighted. A broad selection of accessories for a product makes that product more desirable to buy. This is true of cars, phones, tablets, firearms, etc.

The difference is that in order to even MAKE a third party product for an Apple product, you usually MUST acquire a license to do so and if it's hardware related there's usually a technical need that must be sourced directly from Apple to be incorporated into your design to make it work in the first place.

In this case, Samsung isn't even allowing licensed accessories. The quoted statement in the article says to buy only from Samsung and no one else.

If they want to spread marketshare, a good marketplace for accessories will really help. Constraining that marketplace might sell some extra cases, but will not help sell more devices.

Wow, folks, let's stop with the Apple comparisons already. There are several distinctions that separates this from what Apple does.

While Apple does put authentication chips in some of their accessories, they've mostly left alone things like cases and Bluetooth accessories (smart cover alternatives, keyboards, keyboard cases, etc.)

Next, when Apple intends to enforce an authorized accessories only program, they do it from day one. They may patch a loophole or vulnerability that unauthorized accessory makers have been exploiting, but the security check will have always been there. The fact that Samsung's accessories all have these chips in them shows that Samsung has intended to perform some sort of authentication check all along. The fact that it did not prior to KitKat is not the consumer's fault. Unless Samsung had previously divulged to accessory makers that there would be some sort of authentication check, it's not the third party manufacturers' fault either. This is just a dick move.

Finally, Apple actually has an authorized accessories program. Yes, it may increase the cost of the accessories to have to buy additional components from Apple, but at least you're guaranteed to get something that meets the OEM's standards and has no cut corners. Samsung has shown no evidence of an authorized accessories program. This means that not only did the third party manufacturers not know that this would be an issue, they have no recourse to try and correct it in future iterations of their products. Again, dick move.

As a Samsung phone owner and one who opposes Apple's controlling attitude, fuck this. There is no legitimate reason for these accessories to have an authentication chip. Samsung's letting its success go straight to its head.

Samsung gets ever more unsympathetic. The region locking thing was less bad than it sounded at first but still things like that start to get annoying. I hope Sony, HTC, LG and co. man up and provide some much needed competition. Otherwise we can choose between Apple's walled garden, Microsoft's walled garden or Samsung's walled garden.

(I still think that Microsoft shot themselves totally in the foot by foregoing their former strenghts as the open, partner and developer friendly platform and delivered this to Google on a silver platter. Apple envy forced them into some terrible business decisions)

When would people wise up and stop buying Samsung's crap products? It's obvious that they did it on purpose - to sell $60 covers of their own make. Why on Earth would they put a DRM chip in them otherwise? Everything points to that fact and no flippy-floppy PR statements will change this.

Sammy might want to watch themselves. They make some decent products and that's fine. But if they really did this to sell more of their own high-margin accessories, they are taking a bit of a gamble. They're just as likely to lose customers over bad PR as they are to gain revenue from more sales.

Samsung may be the most popular OEM of Android devices in this part of the world right now but unlike Apple (who is the only OEM that can sell you an iOS device), Samsung could easily be bumped down a good deal if they get a bad reputation. Like Windows PCs, they make the device, not the base platform. Also like Windows PC OEMs, there are several others who would be glad to take their market share. Their PR is a huge part of their dominance in this market right now so they can just as easily slide due to image problems.

In the end I doubt this will be enough of a kerfuffle to make up for all of the hundreds of thousands of people who see Samsung ads on TV every day or the fact that big box stores like Best Buy seem to stock one aisle with iPhone accessories and another with Samsung Galaxy accessories while "all others" get crammed into the leftover space. Still, stupid, irritating moves like this are the ones that get repeated over and over again like talking points on the web so they may want to consider if they want to risk being known as the "locked down" OEM or the "restrictive" OEM for Android devices.

What Samsung fails to see that there is only one Apple to make IPhones. There are many other making Android phones, (LG, HTC, Motorola, Google) and these shenanigans will hurt them in the end. This is not zero other options segment of the market.

I think a comparison to SONY of 5 years ago might be more apt than Apple.

I wouldn't call it malicious, per se... but I would call it shortsighted and incompetent. From a software developers point of view, I would speculate that the reason this issue is only coming out now is because Samsung's developer in charge of this particular "feature" simply couldn't get it debugged properly in time for the initial release. A manager (who almost certainly didn't really care one way or the other) told him to just shelve that feature until the next major release, likely because he was completely certain that nobody would even notice such a minor thing... after all, pretty much all customers will buy the official accessories anyway, right? Right?

When they start putting authentication chips in their charging cables, let me know.

Sorry, still sore over shelling out $19.99 for a new Apple Lightning to USB cable so I could charge 5s at work this morning.

Except that in that case, you're also paying for an analog to digital conversion interface... so it's at least slightly less ridiculous. (I could be wrong, of course... for all I know, the chip in the Samsung covers do some kind of special light-to-digital conversion. )

The difference is that in order to even MAKE a third party product for an Apple product, you usually MUST acquire a license to do so and if it's hardware related there's usually a technical need that must be sourced directly from Apple to be incorporated into your design to make it work in the first place.

Hmm free CAD files of all their mobile products for case design. You only MUST acquire a license if you want to use their "Made For i" branding and icons, or if you have active electronics in the device.